Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

[Regnad Kcin]

I apologize for misrepresenting what you were saying, so let me answer you more thoughtfully.

But first let me say that your whole post indicates that you are buying in to the liberal anti-Trump scare tactics.

In times of prosperity and peace, any laissez faire leader will do. Even an incompetent and corrupt leader is tolerated. When times get tough, and particularly in times of war, tough action-oriented leaders rise to the fore.

In order to solve problems (and I was very good at it), I looked at the problem in simple terms. First one has to recognize that there is a problem.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico. Then look at what is being done at present, and why it is not working. Then look at other countries to see who has a similar problem and how they are solving it.

A wall is a solution. One objection is that it is too expensive. A solution is to get someone else to pay for it, and who better than the country that is benefiting from illegal immigration and not helping to prevent the problem.

Next step is establish how much they benefit from being a neighboring country. It seems they also have industries that make things and sell to the USA. Is it a fair trading relationship? If not then the scale needs to be balanced. Tariffs and penalties for companies that relocate get rich and pay fewer taxes.

Is this called a "trade war"? Insisting on fairness and doing their part? The media with its so-called experts scare the public. With Brexit, collapse was predicted. Has it happened?

People want to do business in the USA. To sell their goods. It is a huge market. The USA has a bad deal, and is getting a raw deal. If a country (Mexico or China) is making a profit of 100% on it goods, would they refuse to do business if they had to agree to 50%? No, they would say, "Gee, the Americans finally wised up."

I find it curious when, every now and then, someone wanders into these forums, not realizing they're dedicated to critical thinking.

 

[acbytesla]

More bouncing back:

Monmouth, Clinton + 7 (from previous Clinton + 13)
IBD/TIPP, Clinton + 1 (from previous Clinton + 7)
Fox News, Clinton + 6 (from previous Clinton + 10)

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin now added to the list of battle states.

What do you mean "added"? Both of which Clinton has double digit leads.

 

[aleCcowaN]

What do you mean "added"? Both of which Clinton has double digit leads.

In PA, Franklin & Marshall's, who gave the amplest double digits (Clinton +13) went to Clinton + 5 now, and so follow the others.

In WI, Marchette's who was giving up to Clinton + 16 has been dropping consistently week after week and now it's Clinton + 3 (and it's not the only one).

Local campaigns are getting momentum and they're dragging the presidential polls.

I'm following the sources I've found trusting and documented -what precludes me from visiting that betting site fivethreewhatever-.

 

[NoahFence]

What do you mean "added"? Both of which Clinton has double digit leads.

He didn't say it was a good battle...

 

[acbytesla]

In PA, Franklin & Marshall's, who gave the amplest double digits (Clinton +13) went to Clinton + 5 now, and so follow the others.

In WI, Marchette's who was giving up to Clinton + 16 has been dropping consistently week after week and now it's Clinton + 3 (and it's not the only one).

Local campaigns are getting momentum and they're dragging the presidential polls.

I'm following the sources I've found trusting and documented -what precludes me from visiting that betting site fivethreewhatever-.

Time will tell, but no way does the Trumpster wins this.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Time will tell, but no way does the Trumpster wins this.

I agree. My forecast remains unchanged: Clinton + 2 or 3, 60 to 100 electoral votes advantage.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree. My forecast remains unchanged: Clinton + 2 or 3, 60 to 100 electoral votes advantage.

Also, Hillary's numbers are dropping and moving to undecided, but not to Trump. Trump's numbers havent budged. I don't see the support that Hillary is losing going to Trump. Johnson or Stein maybe. The only way I see Trump winning is if third party voters siphon off enough of Clinton's support. Trump has to hope that those potential 3rd party voters don't notice that he could be elected and they come back to Clinton.

BTW, it's very usual that 3rd party candidates see rises in their numbers around this time and somehow on election day they lose a lot of that support.

 

[Dr. Keith]

BTW, it's very usual that 3rd party candidates see rises in their numbers around this time and somehow on election day they lose a lot of that support.

I can't put my finger on the timing, but I do remember talking to people who really thought Perot had a chance. Not just blind supporters. Obviously we didn't have access to all the metrics we have now, but I was surprised that he didn't get more votes.

 

[acbytesla]

I can't put my finger on the timing, but I do remember talking to people who really thought Perot had a chance. Not just blind supporters. Obviously we didn't have access to all the metrics we have now, but I was surprised that he didn't get more votes.

He actually got lots of votes. About 19 million to Bush's 39 million to Clinton's 44 million. But alas, not a single electoral vote.

There is a certain dynamic at play which is reality.

The major candidates have a very big spotlight on them including lots of negative ads that naturally makes people wish they had another choice. So they start entertaining that choice. That's when third party candidates numbers rise. Then reality dawns on them. What do they really know about the third party candidate? And often that alone makes them change their mind. For example, I wouldn't want Stein as a mayor, let alone President. She's never held an elected position and her ideas are horrible. And the Libertarians are Republicans on steroids.

But more than this the reality that their choice is binary becomes clear. This is why I pay little attention to the polls that include Johnson and Stein. Come election day, maybe half that percentage will vote for them.

 

[CapelDodger]

I can't put my finger on the timing, but I do remember talking to people who really thought Perot had a chance. Not just blind supporters. Obviously we didn't have access to all the metrics we have now, but I was surprised that he didn't get more votes.

I recall that Perot got brutally dumped on in the last couple of weeks. That was just my take at the time, from a distance, pre-internet, but I've long been a keen observer of US politics and a student of how these things are done. (In the UK it's known as "monstering", and Alastair Campbell is a master of that particular Dark Art.)

Of course the monstering of those pre-Clinton times was positively genteel compared to what we see today. 1992 marked a watershed in political vitriol, and - perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not - was when Carl Rove's career was taking off. In political stratigraphy this is known as the Whitewatershed.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Well, after all the legally induced bipartisan synarchy is by far the main structural feature of the electoral system of the United States.

I repeat what I already told here: on voting intention regarding Johnson, one third remains with Johnson, one third goes to Clinton and one third goes to Trump. In the case of Stein, one third goes to Clinton and the rest remains with Stein. I have no data nor analysis regarding Castle.

Something that is common to all current polls is that those ones that have "everybody voting" tend to be like Clinton + 8, while those which measure real intention of going and actually vote, are like Clinton + 3, roughly speaking.

 

[CapelDodger]

Time will tell, but no way does the Trumpster wins this.

Perhaps not, but George W didn't win it and still got it.

Of course that required the ruling elite to rally round (if Supreme Court justices aren't part of the ruling elite what are their rulings worth?) and Trump just ain't one of them. Trump is a maverick or he's nothing but a trust-fund wiener. (I lean towards the latter, but I was never going to vote for him anyway.)

A dead giveaway of ruling elites is that their children go to school together, clearly separate from other children. It's more important than inter-marriage when it comes to binding families together (that follows naturally), and elites are a tapestry of family alliances.

Trump went to the schools, but has no old friends around him. He was thrown out of a school for bullying: that is failed bullying. The sucessful bullies did it to Trump in a manner that was not evidentiary. Trump tried to mimic them by brutality and got turned in for it. Good riddance to a dreadful oik, from the elite perspective.

Trump's curse is that he was born way above his natural pay-scale, but one has to say that he's made the worst of a bad situation.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, after all the legally induced bipartisan synarchy is by far the main structural feature of the electoral system of the United States.

Despite the acres of print spent on "the evils of party" and expressed intent to design them out of the Constitution, that's certainly been the outcome.

Which is not to say that the current US party alignment will survive in recognisable form. The UK party system, which has seemed so established for a century, is in the blender, and it could happen in the US.

Fortunately, the separation of church and state plan has proven far better designed for purpose.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I agree. My forecast remains unchanged: Clinton + 2 or 3, 60 to 100 electoral votes advantage.

Remember the lag in the polling data. Check out the LATimes flawed poll. The one value it has, to me, is that regardless that they may have a flawed pool, it's changing by the day.

When Trump was gesturing towards a more-reasoned approach, the Kellyanne Kampaign, it made a gradual but notable swing back towards Trump. In the three days since the Arizona Beer Hall Putsch Speech, it's moving back toward Clinton. Other polls are released with longer and averaged sampling date windows and come out 36/48/72 hours after the last polled person responded. So I use the LATimes poll as a bellwether, disregarding its actual metrics, but watching how it moves.

If it is a bellwether, the national polls will follow. At the moment it's an intellectual exercise. I still think the national count is going to be Clinton at >6. More likely about +8.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Remember the lag in the polling data. Check out the LATimes flawed poll. The one value it has, to me, is that regardless that they may have a flawed pool, it's changing by the day.

Remember that the Dornsife (LATimes) poll is always polling the same 3000-people group, so they are a bunch who has an exaggerated awareness of what's going on (that's why there's a rule in the trade that says you shouldn't poll the same person more than three times in a row).
The general public is not that committed, but this poll, as you say, may give some hints of where is it the general mood going.

Additionally, besides their election forecast (to date, 45.3% Trump, 42.3% Clinton, with a record high 2711/3000 respondents) they have the poll about intention to vote by candidate (to date, 82.3% Clinton, 81% Trump) where you usually find that Trump supporters are not very enthusiastic about going and vote (not today).

I had this poll as skewed towards Trump by 3% when compared with the average of other polls I selected as reliable. To my satisfaction I saw one, I don't remember which one, of the many sites that collect polls (Huffington, Real Clear Politics, etc) making the exact same correction before entering it into their forecast.

But this Dornsife poll doesn't inform the content of their questionnaire. We don't know how they include third party candidates. That's very important. There are at least three different ways to ask the question in all those polls with dozens of variations: In one extreme there's one poll that asks "Clinton or Trump?" and doesn't accept any other option (a forced poll). They are giving Clinton 54%, Trump 46% these days. On the other extreme there are polls that list five candidates, give the options of not voting or not decided yet and ask as if the election were today. They are rendering Clinton 40%, Trump 39%, Johnson 8%, Stein 3%, Castle and others 1%, not decided 4% and not going to vote 5%. Reality is today somewhere between them.

 

[PartSkeptic]

How convenient.

Hillary - "The 'concussion' or 'brain injury' caused me to forget my training on classified information. I thought a 'C' was a paragraph mark."

Vote for her, but do you buy her stories on her emails?

And the Clinton foundation?

(And who believed Bill about not having sex with that woman?)

She is not looking well in recent pictures. Trump by a landslide!!!

 

[Ladewig]

She is not looking well in recent pictures. Trump by a landslide!!!

There is looking good in real life and looking good in the polls. Clinton by not a landslide.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Anyone see this part of Trumps Mexico speech in the mainstream media?

Is this censorship by omission? Or - "Quick get the negative-spin pundits to trash the speech."

I had to search for a transcript.

http://time.com/4475102/donald-trump-enrique-pena-nieto-transcript/

And I happen to have a tremendous feeling for Mexican Americans not only in terms of friendships, but in terms of the tremendous numbers that I employ in the United States and they are amazing people, amazing people. I have many friends, so many friends and so many friends coming to Mexico and in Mexico. I am proud to say how many people I employ.

And the United States first, second and third generation Mexicans are just beyond reproach. Spectacular, spectacular hard-working people. I have such great respect for them and their strong values of family, faith and community.

 

[varwoche]

I recall that Perot got brutally dumped on in the last couple of weeks...

Before that, he went mental (supposedly over his daughter being harassed), he withdrew from the race, and wasn't able to recover when he got back in.

 

[Ladewig]

Anyone see this part of Trumps Mexico speech in the mainstream media?

Is this censorship by omission?

If we are going to talk about this subject, then let's talk about it seriously.